WelfareQueen
Diamond Member
One of the things that is becoming a concern over the past decade, is free speech in the realm of social media and in an era when previously persecuted minorities are now empowered to push back on what they previously had to endure. In addition, social media has created and amplified echo chambers that we naturally tend to be drawn towards. What I am seeing seems to be an increasingly fractured society where we no longer even agree on a common set of facts.
Within this the right of free speech is increasingly coming into scrutiny and threat. I firmly believe that rights come with responsibilities, and when enough of us abdicate those responsibilities, then lawmakers are forced into making laws to create some restrictions.
Social media has grown exponentially, and has long been a relatively lawless frontier. It’s founders and owners held a philosophy of maximum free speech (along with data collection and marketing dollars), but pushback began with the growth and spread radical groups. ISIS differentiated itself from Al Queda in it’s sophisticated use of social media for propaganda, recruitment and radicalizing. Parents were shocked on finding out their children had been radicalized over social media. But ISIS was only the first.
I just read an article that identified one of the rioters who broke into the capital, as an Air Force veteran (the dude with the zip tie hand cuffs). Friends reported he had become increasingly radical and extreme and distanced themselves from him.
Leake said that he believed the same intense commitment that had made Brock an effective fighter pilot had led him to this week’s events in the Capitol. “Torch got all in on Trump,” Leake said. “He went all in on the alternative-news-source world. He actually believes liberals and Democrats are a threat to the country. You can see how the logical conclusion to that is, We’ve gotta take over.”
It isn’t just ISIS any more. What exactly should be done? The findings that terrorists like ISIS were recruiting through social media finally put pressure on social media to begin banning and removing them, reluctantly. This pressure has only increased in recent years with more and more bubbles and more radical movements using it to recruit or sway.
What is at the moment difficult to sort out is the responsibilities and possible limits of social media in relation to free speech. Social media platforms are all privately owned, and it seems to me they are at the line where they must start taking some responsibility or face legal action in the form of new laws or removal of protections.
What is the answer that would balance free speech and public safety?
1. Make laws against certain types of speech. Europe has this with Holocaust denial for example. But I am not a fan of this. For instance WHO gets to decide what constitutes prohibited speech? Also I’ve always felt that sunlight is the best cleanser. Let those voices be out in the open where public pushback can refute them, provide facts, and marginalize them. If they are prohibited, they just fester in the darknet and utilize this discrimination to justify their stances.
2. No restrictions other than the basic laws of libel, slander etc. Let the people sort it out and pushback on these fringe groups. But what happens when that doesn’t happen? Or when leadership joins the fringe and gives credibility by bringing it into the mainstream and violence, civil unrest, or terrorism occurs because enough people believe in something that has no factual basis?
How do you preserve free speech in this environment?
The entire basis of free speech is accepting the right of those to express ideas you do not like. Social media is squashing speech they do not like. It is totalitarian and deeply anti American.
Totally agree.
BUT...social media is also a privately owned product.
How do you reconcile that?
And where, if at all, do you draw any lines?
The left is terrified of Trump. That is what this is about. They want to silence him and his supporters. They are too stupid to realize that only makes the situation worse.
With all due respect, I think you don’t really see it, at least my perspective as a leftist.
We aren’t terrified of Trump. We are terrified of what he is allowed/enabled to get away with, the way it becomes normalized and rationalizes to the point where an attempted violent overthrow is seen as justified.
I have been reading articles about some of the people involved, and a recurrent theme is a deeply held belief in QAnon...and, I some cases like Ashley Babbit, a deeply troubled personal life. It is a belief that doesn’t just dislike the opposing ideology, but demonizes the people into reservoirs of evil that must be not only defeated but anhilated. That, frankly is frightening.
The difference between someone like Trump and someone like you or me, is his words carry ENORMOUS weight. He doesn’t ever speak as Donald Trump, but as the POTUS (as does any president). And as long president, he can speak as a private citizen because he isn’t.
I do not like a lot of Anifa's speech or BLM for that matter, but I would never advocate attempting to silence them.
I agree, and I feel similar for like Westboro Baptist’s, various independent RW militias, Proud Boys even Nazis. But what happens if tbey are actively planning activities that lead to insurrection? Or, like the plan to kidnap political officials? Left or Right?
Do privately owned entities have the right to set limits? Can they be held liable? Do they have a social responsibility?
When it comes to what the government can and can’t do it is much more clear imo, with free speech being affirmed.
But the hard Left is Fascist. It has always been Fascist. There is no hard Left in history that did not attempt to squash free speech. They do this because they know their ideas cannot survive the light of day.
The hard right is no different.
They are private companies that are legally exempted from civil liability because they argued they represent multiple views that are in the public interest,
Clearly social media lied to get civil liability exemption. I say remove it immediately. Why should newspapers and broadcast entities be subject to civil liability but social media is not? Does that sound fair to you?
If social media wants to limit open discussion and debate and squash speech they do not like make them open to lawsuits like every other media entity. Problem solved.